What we’re really embroiled in here is a very old argument, made possible by conceding the foundational principle of socialism: some people’s needs are important enough to over-ride other people’s rights.
Once that door has been cracked open, and the concept of “inalienable rights” derived from an authority higher than the State has been discarded, all else is negotiation.
Slick trick. They distort Christian principles, such as charitable giving and being our brother's keeper, and then use them as leverage against voters common sense.
This way, it becomes the popular vote to undermine the Constitution, almost like it's our idea.
They do the same with most taxation.
Typo: not “Haywood’s editorial”. That should have been “Hayward’s editorial”
****some people’s needs are important enough to over-ride other people’s rights.****
****“inalienable rights” derived from an authority higher than the State has been discarded, all else is negotiation.****
With liberal progressive socialists, there is no negotiation, they will tell us what the “people” need and who will pay for those needs.